Skip to content

A few thoughts on latter day mortal sins

I mentioned in a post yesterday that I’m currently reading Jill Lepore’s These Truths, a history of the US. Today I began the last section of the book, covering the period from the end of World War II to our own bleak times. Early in that period the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. Lepore discussed each justice in turn, many of whom were initially inclined to rule against the plaintiffs. It was only the timely and fortunate death of Chief Justice Vinson, which brought Earl Warren to the court, that saved us from continued court sanctioned segregation. This sentence sort of jumped out at me:

Hugo Black, from Alabama, was one of the strongest voices in opposition to segregation, even though he himself had been a member of the Klan in the 1920s – a blot that he strained to scrub clean.

Hugo Black was a great justice. Hugo Black could never get on the Supreme Court today if he were nominated by a Democrat, but unreconstructed racists (William Rehnquist was a Supreme Court clerk at the time Brownwas decided, and he urged Justice Jackson to vote to preserve Plessy v Ferguson) nominated by Republicans breeze right through. So do sexual abusers, but we’ll get to one of them later.

The quote about Black brought to mind the situation in Virginia and like situations, and the question of whether an individual should be permanently barred from public office due to something he or she may have done in the past. I’m not expressing any particular view on Northam, though this articlein today’s Times certainly indicates that the issue there is more complicated than it might seem to some. But, of course, there’s the “indentured servant” thing, and that’s pretty weird. Anyway, I’m talking about the fact that when a Democrat has sinned, he or she is automatically consigned to political hell, by everyone (Democrats, Republicans and the press) while Republicans skate free to sin again.

There are very few people in this world who have done nothing shameful in the past. We Catholics were taught about confession and penance; confess your sins and a sincere act of contrition and sinning no more gets you right with the Lord and on track to go to heaven, until you sin again. Even a mortal sin can be forgiven, provided you are properly contrite, etc. I’ve got no brief for Catholicism anymore, but there’s something to that formulation (except the heaven part). It seems to me that we’ve seen a number of instances in which people of the Democratic persuasion have been subjected to a take no prisoners sort of “justice”, which essentially mandates that a past sin, be it venial or mortal, cannot be forgiven, and requires that the sinner be banished forever, despite what he or she may have done since committing his or her particular sin. They are not allowed, like Black, to strain to scrub the blot clean. “There is”, to quote Hamlet’s Uncle Claudius, “not rain enough in the sweet heavens to wash it white as snow”.

Now I can hear my Republican friends (actually, I have no Republican friends) saying that I didn’t make the same argument about Kavanaugh. But in that case, the circumstances didn’t warrant it, because while Kavanaugh (a “devout” Catholic no less) had obviously committed the sin in question, he neither admitted to the sin nor expressed any contrition. In fact, he broke the eighth commandment repeatedly during his testimony, except while professing his fondness for beer. Had he admitted his error and expressed contrition, the situation might have been different. Instead, he committed what was, under the circumstances, yet another mortal sin, for which he cannot be forgiven so long as, like the aforementioned Claudius, he is “still possessed of those effects for which” he bore false witness.

Part of the dynamics in these incidents has to do with the press wanting to bring someone down. It only works on Democrats because IOKYAR. Not only does the press not let up on Democrats (consider the fact that they are amplifying the stupid Indian meme about Elizabeth Warren) but it rapidly consigns Republican sins to the memory hole.

Some examples from the recent past: Some Republicans voiced some pallid objections to Roy Moore, but only the voters actually rejected him, and had his sin been merely racism (he is a racist after all) rather than molesting young white girls, he’d be a senator right now and no one would be talking about him. In fact his racism was hardly mentioned during the campaign. It was a given. Consider Cindy Hyde-Smith, the newly elected Republican from Mississippi, who is, like Moore, currently and without question a racist. I mean, I don’t know how you rank these things, but I think dressing up in black face 30 years ago, but being a relatively decent person since then, is not quite as bad as wanting to go to a lynching in the here and now. Or consider the irony that the guy who would become governor if the beleaguered Democrats in Virginia all resign edited yearbook full of racist stuff and currently teaches classes at William & Mary in which he both acts in a racist fashion and promotes racism. He hasn’t changed, but we all know he’ll skate free, even if Northam and the other Democrats all resign. In truth and in fact (as we lawyers like to say) the Republican Party is now the home base for racists, and that fact goes unacknowledged by some of the same forces that go after folks like Northam. The only rule, so far as Republicans are concerned, is that you can’t publicly, proudly, and explicitly admit to being a racist (see, e.g., Steven King, who forgot to talk in code) and even if you do, you’re not pressured to resign, you just lose your committee assignments.

Again, I’m not excusing what Northam did. What I’m saying is that the fact that someone (always a Democrat) did something wrong years ago should not automatically and unquestionably disqualify them from holding public office forever. We have already lost some good people (e.g., Al Franken) and will undoubtedly lose more in the future if this kind of thing isn’t tempered by some sort of due process and sound judgment, while the real bad guys on the right will just keep on keeping on.

A bit on both sides

So, I know that Bill Maher is a little problematic, but when he’s right, he’s right, so I’ll pass on this brilliant takedown of both Howard Schultz and the both-siderism that he’s selling. I wish I could embed the video, but try as I might, I can’t make the embed code work.

I’m sure Maher has pointed this out before, but I think we may be seeing a bit of movement in the media to start rejecting the both sides meme. Trump is horrible, but he may have accomplished that. It’s getting harder and harder for the punditry to claim that both sides are equivalent in light of his criminality, ignorance, and incompetence.

On a related subject, I want to pass on something I just read in Jill Lepore’s These Truths, a book I highly recommend. It’s a history of the US, which shines a light on a lot of dark corners of American history.

Anyway, Lepore relates that in the late forties and early fifties political scientists bemoaned the fact that the political parties had become so similar that it was often hard to tell the difference between the two. They warned, believe it or not, that democracy was in trouble unless the parties became more polarized. Well, we all know how that worked out, but get a load of what Thomas Dewey had to say at the time, both remarkably prescient and remarkably wrong:

[The political scientists] want to drive all moderates and liberals out of the Republican Party and then have the remainder join forces with conservative groups of the South. Then they would have everything neatly arranged, indeed. The Democratic Party would be the liberal-to-radical-party. The Republican Party would be the conservative-to-reactionary party. The results would be neatly arranged, too. The Democrats would win every election.

Regrettably, the latter prediction hasn’t proven true, and the radical part of the Democratic Party appears to be missing in action, as is, when you come right down to it, the “conservative”, wing of the Republican Party, if we harken back to the meaning of the term as Dewey understood it. 

Told you so

Almost two weeks ago (ages in Trump time), I observed that although Trump’s followers would never admit they were scammed, they’d be more than willing to admit that they’ve been betrayed. Betrayal is, of course, exactly what happens to you after you’ve been conned, but it’s easy to talk yourself into believing there’s a distinction, which relieves you of any responsibility for falling for the con man in the first place.

I like to point out when I’m right, so I direct your attention to this column in the New York Times, the subtitle of which is If Trump betrays his most loyal supporters, he’ll deserve his fate, in which that point is made with reference to Trump’s soon to be final failure to get the wall. As a side note, the fact that the wall, even if built, will not be paid for by Mexico is never mentioned as a betrayal, though it was clearly part of the con.

Another issue is raised by this column, to wit: why is this mendacious word salad occupying space in the editorial pages of the New York Times? You can find the answer to that question here.

He ain’t leaving

Here’s an article titled SNDY May Soon Indict Trump’s Kids to Force Him Out of Office

I’m not disagreeing that there’s a real possibility that Erik and Don, Jr., even (oh please God!) Ivanka, will soon be indicted.

I just don’t buy into the “force him out of office” logic.

We all know enough about Trump to know that he is totally narcissistic and cares only about himself. Sure, he’d probably ratherthat his kids weren’t in jail, but if it’s him or them, then it’s him. So this means there are two possible Trump reactions to such indictments.

First, he could issue a wholesale pardon. I’d put this at a 40% probability, as it puts him at risk.

Second, he could bloviate about the unfairness of the unfounded persecution of his family and do nothing else. I’d put this at a 60% probability.

That adds up to 100%. The chance of him resigning in some sort of deal that gets his kids off the hook: 0%.

If he does pardon them, and the charges are handed off to state authorities, then he is left with two options: cut a deal or let his kids rot in jail. Odds that he chooses “let them rot”: 100%.

The above presumes no indictment of Individual-1 himself, or any clear cut indication that such an indictment will be handed down on January 21, 2021. If he is capable of absorbing the fact that he might face prison himself after that date he might work a deal that also gets his kids off the hook, as long as he is dehooked in the process.

That raises the question of whether the prosecutors should cut such a deal. I am willing to give Gerald Ford the benefit of the doubt. I think he thought his Nixon pardon would heal the nation’s wounds, etc. I never believed it, but I think he really did. But time has proven beyond doubt that it was the wrong thing to do, since it taught the right that the consequences of political crimes were not significant enough to deter the crimes. Sort of like the fact that the banks never learned anything from tanking the economy in 2008, given that they got a pardon in the form of a bailout.

It remains my firm opinion that the genius is more likely to die in office than resign or be impeached. The question is: what will he do to distract from his crimes over the course of the next two years. If we can avoid a pointless war we’ll be lucky indeed. 

There’s a word for that

Erik Prince is once more in the news. One must truly wonder about how any given two parents could raise siblings as loathsome as he and Betsy DeVos, but pondering that is for another day.

This time he’s been caughttrying to make money by helping China persecute Muslims:

But Mr. Prince scrambled on Friday to distance himself from the latest announcement: that his company, Frontier Services Group, had struck a deal to build a training camp in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, where hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been detained in indoctrination camps that have drawn condemnation in Washington and abroad.

My beef is with the New York Times. (What else is new?) Why, when dealing with right wingers, does the Time feel the need to airbrush things? Prince made a name for himself, we are told, as “a private military contractor”. He has “employees”. There’s a perfectly good word that the Times avoids as much as it avoids the word “lie” when talking about a certain genius. The word is “mercenary”. Look it up in any dictionary. It says it all and obfuscates nothing.

Count your blessings, always look on the bright side of life, and every time it rains it rains pennies from heaven

The fact that Trump spends all his time watching television instead of working is once again in the news

What I can’t understand is that people seem to think it’s a bad thing that the genius spends so little time presiding. As I’ve pointed out every Good Friday since this blog started, one should always look on the bright side of life. So I say, just imagine how much harm he could do if he was more engaged. Sure, it would be nice, and a lot less harmful, if he watched cartoons instead of Fox and Friends, but one can’t have everything.

Saturday Night Rant

This is a rant, but it is political, in a sense.

I recently retired, and have therefore been spending a lot of time at home, though it obviously hasn’t increased my productivity so far as blogging is concerned.

We still have a land line. Every day I get phone calls from scammers. Brenda, a “Medicare Adviser” for example, calls me almost every day, from assorted locations, to scam me. I never listen long enough to find out the precise nature of the scam, because I hang up on her, but I figure she doesn’t take it personally, since she’s not a person. Yesterday, “Mike”, “Dave”, and another Guy with an Indian accent whose Americanized name I can’t recall, each called separately on behalf of Senior Advisersto scam me. They called again this morning and my wife got the call, apparently it’s an insurance scam.

When I was working I was the go to guy for some of my co-workers to examine emails to determine if they were from scammers, so I’m not likely to fall for one of these things, but it’s clear simply from the volume that they must be successful in quite a few cases. I even know someone who fell for the scam about fixing your Windows computer. We geezers are being fleeced right and left and one must wonder, why isn’t anyone doing anything about it. Couldn’t the FCC, when it isn’t busy handing the internet over to the ISPs, spend a bit of time on this? How about the FTC? How about Congress itself? Why isn’t anyone pressuring the phone companies themselves to do something about them? Or how about the banks, through which most of the money they scam must flow?

My phone tells me the alleged location of many of these callers. It is often random locations within Connecticut, places I’m sure Brenda, for instance, has never visited. I mean, unless you live there, have you ever gone to Jewett City?

These are criminal enterprises, and although I’m sure they go to lengths to make it hard to track them down, it shouldn’t be all that hard if the relevant people and corporations made a concerted effort to get them.

End of rant.

A common dodge

I was struck by a great example of a common right wing/corporate dodge whilst perusing the editorial page of today’s Boston Globe. It is one I think often goes unnoted, so I’m going to note it here.

Massachusett’s governor, Charlie Baker, has proposed a set of laws designed to bring down prescription drug prices for Medicaid patients in Massachusetts. The Globe editorial board (which loves Charlie Baker) lauds his proposal in an editorial here. Baker is the last of the throwback Republicans, he has even proposed raising taxes. Still, he’s a Republican, but that’s not what this post is about, nor is it a defense or attack on his prescription drug proposal. It has good points, which the Globe’s editorial summarizes, and may be the best a state can do given federal inaction.

No, this post is about an op-ed pieceby one Robert K. Coughlin, which, because when corporate interests are concerned, both sides must always be presented, sits below the Globe’s editorial. Coughlin is president and CEO of MassBio, and therefore has an unstated but obvious financial interest in keeping the price of prescription drugs high. 

He begins his op-ed piece by attacking Baker for engaging in “ political gimmickry on drug pricing rather than attempting a more serious approach to improving health care for Massachusetts residents while reining in spending.” Right away the reader assumes that Mr. Coughlin is going to enlighten us as to the “serious approach” he is espousing.

The bulk of the piece though, is a sustained attack on the (Charlie) Baker proposal, based generally, on the universal Big Pharma dodge that if they can’t gouge us on drug prices, they simply won’t be able to innovate. (See Dean Baker’s papers on this, one here.).

Are you still waiting for Mr. Coughlin’s solution to the problem of high drug prices? Well, here it is:

Instead of following the governor’s political gamesmanship, the Legislature should pull together a group of experts from all corners of health care to work on a series of real reforms that can both improve health outcomes for our residents and cut unneeded spending without risking harm to our most vulnerable patients.

In case you missed it, there’s nothing there. Mr. Coughlin has preserved his ability to oppose any and all proposals that might actually reduce the cost of prescription drugs. This is a common right wing/corporate dodge. Sure there’s a problem, they say, so lets study it and think about it and stuff, but let’s not actually doanything about it, especially if doing something about it would cut into corporate profits or take a dollar from the pocket of a billionaire. Coughlin’s piece is a particularly glaring example of this dodge, but it’s very common. For, after all, when they really have to come up with solutions, like they were supposed to do to improve Obamacare, they come up empty. 

A conversation starter

Looks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have started something.

As an aside, she sure has made an impression. My auto-complete worked on her last name. 

Beware the law of unintended consequences

Nancy Pelosi is talking about legislation to end shutdowns, the thrust of it being that spending levels would automatically continue at present levels during any period when appropriations were not made. This articlesuggests that’s not such a good idea, and the author (Ian Milhiser) makes a good case. His essential argument is that such a mechanism would make it easier for Republicans to refuse to vote on new appropriations, as the immediate political cost would be negligible, while continued intransigence would amount to a slow defunding of vital programs due to inflation.

It’s a helpful reminder that before suggesting any type of corrective legislation, it’s a good idea to put yourself in the shoes of your opponents and try to figure out how they would or could use it to cause havoc.

I’m not sure the courts would allow it, but Milhiser suggests the following:

One possibility is a law providing that, for each week that Congress fails to pass appropriations, marginal tax rates on Americans earning more than a million dollars a year will automatically increase by one percent. That way, a powerful Republican constituency will have a major incentive to end the shutdown, and Republican lawmakers will be pushed into a weaker and weaker bargaining position the longer the shutdown continues.

As he points out, since Republicans are the problem, the solution has to target Republicans where it hurts, so they will have an incentive to act responsibly. On the same subject, I agree somewhat with the writer here, who says the Republicans may have learned their lesson, but the lesson isn’t that they shouldn’t shut down the government, it’s that they should do it in a way that benefits them. The fact that some of them are suggesting we look at an automatic continuing resolution merely means they see the possibility of abusing it in the way Milhiser discusses.